Combat Changes or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Disarm

General Changes

Your default damage, and dodge and block chance are very low by default. Further, you take significantly increased damage. These factors can be improved by certain modifiers, but in your default state you are very fragile and very weak. Blows have a slightly longer 'wait' period between each strike.

Combat Aim

Combat Aim is your way of 'picking your target' in combat. It has no visible effect other than you turning to face someone. You will not turn away from that person until combat aim is disabled (or you use face-direction), either manually or by them leaving your frame of vision, and will move slightly slower than usual if you're not on help intent.

If you're combat aiming at someone, it basically boosts your damage, hit chance + damage, and block/dodge chance against that person up to 'acceptable' levels. In this, dodge and block chances are higher than they are now, and damage is scaled alongside this, to make hits rarer but more damaging.

Factors

Factors are five numbers that change during combat depending on your intent/movement.

Examples

FAQ

Thanks to Mwahahahaha, Schev, Exia, ShameOnTurtles, and Catnip for feedback. No thanks at all to Aboshehab.

Any questions, feedback, suggestions, etc., please go ahead.

Combat that isn't just RNG? Blasphemy.

Seriously though, this sounds so good. Actually having strategy in combat? Brilliant.

What about fighting multiple people?

What about fighting multiple people?

Further, it means that ganging up on someone has a greater effect - they need to balance their focus on the two of you if you both attack. Because of the disadvantages not aiming provides, they can still hold you off, but it means they need to predict who's striking and when.

I'm not sure how toggling between people would work, or the mechanics behind selecting who you actually aim at, but I'm sure it's possible to code something that suits this purpose.

Surely it'd be possible to have this combat aim selected similarly to examine. So something + click. Only issue I see is alt, ctrl and shift are already taken. But then perhaps it could be a small icon on the screen - like the one that determines whether you are aiming or shooting, and it could either bring up a menu of who to select out of mobs on screen, or just cycle between them with each click.

Surely it'd be possible to have this combat aim selected similarly to examine. So something + click. Only issue I see is alt, ctrl and shift are already taken. But then perhaps it could be a small icon on the screen - like the one that determines whether you are aiming or shooting, and it could either bring up a menu of who to select out of mobs on screen, or just cycle between them with each click.

The issue with the second suggestion is it's very hard to deal with a menu in the heat of combat, but cycling between them seems good, unless you're versing 3+ opponents or there are spectators.

The issue with the second suggestion is it's very hard to deal with a menu in the heat of combat, but cycling between them seems good, unless you're versing 3+ opponents or there are spectators.

Maybe it'd be possible to have it cycle, but also you can just select someone particular by right clicking, and having it be an option there (for when there is a crowd or something on screen.)

The issue with the second suggestion is it's very hard to deal with a menu in the heat of combat, but cycling between them seems good, unless you're versing 3+ opponents or there are spectators.

 

Maybe it'd be possible to have it cycle, but also you can just select someone particular by right clicking, and having it be an option there (for when there is a crowd or something on screen.)

I'm not sure if middle clicking on someone does anything currently but perhaps that? To be honest this is a problem easily solved by someone familiar with the capabilities of the code. I'm in full support of this overhaul.

The issue with the second suggestion is it's very hard to deal with a menu in the heat of combat, but cycling between them seems good, unless you're versing 3+ opponents or there are spectators.

 

Maybe it'd be possible to have it cycle, but also you can just select someone particular by right clicking, and having it be an option there (for when there is a crowd or something on screen.)

 

I'm not sure if middle clicking on someone does anything currently but perhaps that? To be honest this is a problem easily solved by someone familiar with the capabilities of the code. I'm in full support of this overhaul.

Middle clicking is currently an option for use of hardsuit modules. But yeah, the controls are a trivial matter tbh, they're easily solved. This suggestion gets my 100% approval, I really want combat to be more than RNG.

I quite like this. I'm not sure how realistic it would be to implement, but it would certainly take combat further away from it's rng and spam heavy lrp roots towards something more impactful and story-prone. Pretty much had me sold on the captain's assassination attempt.

I recommend also including grab chances, resists, and wrestling into this as well. And maybe an incentive to not be on harm all the time? Like, being on harm is effectively being squared up, which makes you move a bit slower and has obvious indicators so that you would look like a tool if you walked around on harm all the time.

Seems neat. But the questions are how would target switching be implemented and would all intents make you punch your target if target locked (i see damage imncrease on grab intent)?

Seems nice, as long as the targeting system is done well with visual indicators and cycling.

I would absolutely love if this was implemented. As for the targeting, what if it was a button near the throw button? Toggle the target selecting button of selection on and click someone like you're throwing at them, and it targets them.

I support this completely, I am already hyped and see no joy in the current combat system after I've read this.

something to consider later would be weapon intents (stab, slash, crush, etc) and how well types of armor and movements work with them (moving sides while slashing, lounging forward with a stab etc)

I do not support this suggestion because it will make my robusting techniques weaker because it will reinforce not using help when walking, and staying on disarm will provide defensive buffs which makes disarm spamming even better. I would support it if the stat changes were balanced a bit and there was some system for fighting multiple foes/someone coming from other directions.

This feels... clunky. More so than our current system, it feels like there'll be just an absolute clusterfuck of intents, and aims, especially when multiple people are involved in a firefight (as they usually are) which won't help our current system one bit. I'm all for adding more to our intents, and buffing the current aim we've got (and adding it to melee is a good idea) but I don't think we should nerf everything else in conjunction.

I've been dicking around with combat changes for a good while now - including a system based on weighing your RNG. which was fucking horrible. For multiple reasons.

* A pain in the ass to fight against, there's often no visual indication of RNG swinging effects, making it feel unfair that this lad just dodged your shit.

* Unrewarding to fight with - weighing your RNG is one thing you need to do, then click things.

Lockons also seem like a clunky mechanic here. and probably shouldn't be a thing effecting how much damage you do. if lockons exist for aurora, they should be automatic for a period of time, based on the last person you hit, rather than having to Initiate it manually, which would be clunky, without any clear bonus to it.

The issues provided could be changed easily, as well - without changing the entire thing into a more clunky, more RNG influenced system.

The Captain assassination? You can already cut their throat, and a back stab mechanic would be *extremely* clunky, considering that there's only four directions, and that you'd manually have to initiate a lock on, or just moonwalk out. neither of which sound fluid. - along with the fact that the captain would probably be pretty fucking suspect of a lad walking behind him anyway. it's ss13. you have 360 vision (which won't change on aurora for a variety of reasons.)

13th Crusade for example has lockons, but the only combat related purpose they have is to keep your cone of vision on target. and don't provide any non visual bonus. Adding RNG to things that aren't represented visually is a shitty idea, end of story.

The intent hot swapping thing is also fairly shit, as you're just discouraging help intent in general - there's literally no benefit to it. Everyone would just be walking around on grab intent.

TLDR: reeeeeeee

Lockons can simply be examining someone with "lockon toggle" on.

You are already clicking people and if you're moving you're next to the shift key already.

I recommend also including grab chances, resists, and wrestling into this as well.

That was more or less what I had in mind, although I hadn't considered how resists would play into things.

Seems neat. But the questions are how would target switching be implemented and would all intents make you punch your target if target locked (i see damage imncrease on grab intent)?

No, that's for when you're holding a weapon. In a fistfight, the modifiers would still apply, but you'd need to be on the relevant intent to land a hit/disarm/grab/hug <3.

This feels... clunky. More so than our current system, it feels like there'll be just an absolute clusterfuck of intents, and aims, especially when multiple people are involved in a firefight (as they usually are) which won't help our current system one bit. I'm all for adding more to our intents, and buffing the current aim we've got (and adding it to melee is a good idea) but I don't think we should nerf everything else in conjunction.

Things aren't really 'nerfed' so much as their priorities are changed. Currently, people are stupidly resilient. They can get shot five times with a silenced pistol in the head and drag themselves to medical. They can get smashed over the head with a baseball bat and turn around, none the worse for wear. This suggestion gives everything weight. Getting hit does damage, but it's easier to dodge or block, and more skill-based to do so. While it may end up as just a clusterfuck of intents at first, I doubt that it will remain that way for very long at all, especially when people start learning the tactics for it. People will go to great lengths to be robust, and this system is quite easy to learn the basics of.

I do not support this suggestion because it will make my robusting techniques weaker because it will reinforce not using help when walking, and staying on disarm will provide defensive buffs which makes disarm spamming even better. I would support it if the stat changes were balanced a bit and there was some system for fighting multiple foes/someone coming from other directions.

The help-intent thing was explained in the FAQ, but the disarm spamming thing is a good point. The idea was much more that you can dodge and tank these things much easier, and smacking someone with a weapon before they can disarm you is a lot more damaging to them (as in, they can't just rush into you and spam-disarm you because you'll just fuck them up before they get the weapon out of your hand).

The Trial of Mr. Pacman:

[spoiler=The Trial of Mr. Pacman]

I've been dicking around with combat changes for a good while now - including a system based on weighing your RNG. which was fucking horrible. For multiple reasons.

* A pain in the ass to fight against, there's often no visual indication of RNG swinging effects, making it feel unfair that this lad just dodged your shit.

Reasonable critique, but this could be very easily solved with the attack text showing that an attack was very close to hitting/very wide off it's mark. And that said, is it any different from what we have now?

* Unrewarding to fight with - weighing your RNG is one thing you need to do, then click things.

A pretty egregious oversimplification of how it plays out. Sure, yeah, you're only doing two things, but within those things there's an umbrella of potential inside of it. Moving around, locking onto targets, and changing your intent, are all much more complex in practice than just clicking the "weigh my RNG now" button.

Lockons also seem like a clunky mechanic here. and probably shouldn't be a thing effecting how much damage you do. if lockons exist for aurora, they should be automatic for a period of time, based on the last person you hit, rather than having to Initiate it manually, which would be clunky, without any clear bonus to it.

Pls elaborate. I don't think it's clunky at all - it's to show who you're focusing on, and to account for that in terms of damage and hit chance. If you're not looking at someone as though they were a threat, then they're going to be able to get that cheap shot off.

The issues provided could be changed easily, as well - without changing the entire thing into a more clunky, more RNG influenced system.

The Captain assassination? You can already cut their throat, and a back stab mechanic would be *extremely* clunky, considering that there's only four directions, and that you'd manually have to initiate a lock on, or just moonwalk out. neither of which sound fluid. - along with the fact that the captain would probably be pretty fucking suspect of a lad walking behind him anyway. it's ss13. you have 360 vision (which won't change on aurora for a variety of reasons.)

Cutting their throat requires a passive grab, then an aggressive grab, then 3 seconds while you slit their throat, which unless you're using a more powerful melee weapon doesn't even put them in danger. I'm sorry, you keep saying it's clunky, but I don't understand what you mean by that. Locking onto someone will be as simple as a click or button press, and from there it's just walking up behind them and clicking on them. The fact that there's only four directions would make the backstab less clunky and more predictable, I'd have thought.

13th Crusade for example has lockons, but the only combat related purpose they have is to keep your cone of vision on target. and don't provide any non visual bonus. Adding RNG to things that aren't represented visually is a shitty idea, end of story.

Again, pls explain why.

The intent hot swapping thing is also fairly shit, as you're just discouraging help intent in general - there's literally no benefit to it. Everyone would just be walking around on grab intent.

As I put in the FAQ, this is intentional. Help intent is your 'I'm not a combatant' stance. If you walk around on help intent, you're more vulnerable because you're playing a character that isn't on guard 24/7. If someone wants to walk around on grab intent all the time, while it should be disencouraged, that's their choice. They're not invincible. They don't see an attack coming, they'll still be blindsided by it.

TLDR: reeeeeeee

same tbh

It sounds like a bitch to learn at first, but I don't doubt it'd add some edge to combat that might be fun. Just hope you guys have spare keyboards and mice. Gonna be breaking these things more often.

It might be more skill-based to dodge or block, but I feel for the frames we run at, for the way we target limbs and do damage, I don't think it'll be a fluid system at all. You could just perpetually be on edge, ready to disarm anything by being constantly set to disarm. This can just be done by adding specific modifiers for things, without this whole lock-on system. I just really hate the lock-on, considering that if you're in an engagement with two people, or in a firefight with one team against another (which is a constant thing that happens) it's going to end up being a massive clusterfuck- a mishmash of intents. I don't think our current system is very good, and I like the modifiers for intents- I dislike locking on to targets, as it makes any sort of group engagement such a fucking hassle, because if one guy on your team goes down or you have one person less than them, you're automatically gonna let one guy on the enemy team be effectively immune to bullets, because if he' not locked onto then he's gonna have a much higher dodge chance. This wouldn't be a problem if clear communication was always available, but in a text game there's not much time to do on-the-spot strategy, and even less time to see it in the haze of gunfire.

This system rewards players who will either gank security in solo engagements as antags such as wizards or ninja, while also rewarding Sec constantly all rushing at the antag as one to beat the shit out of them as a collective. It further reinforces the idea that wizards or ninjas should deck solo members of staff, while also telling antags in groups or Security in general that mobbing the shit out of the antags is a solid way to win.

It might be more skill-based to dodge or block, but I feel for the frames we run at, for the way we target limbs and do damage, I don't think it'll be a fluid system at all.

What do you mean by this? Is this another way of saying 'clunky'? I would disagree that this system should be categorized under that word. Of course the system will feel strange compared to our current one, but that's due to needing to learn a new system. When learning space station 13 for the first time, I thought stuff was clunky too.

You could just perpetually be on edge, ready to disarm anything by being constantly set to disarm.

Stuff like the movement penalties detailed is a good counter for this. But hey, if you want your character to act perpetually on edge, then you have to- as a player- also be perpetually on edge. That's a play-style you could utilize.

This can just be done by adding specific modifiers for things, without this whole lock-on system. I just really hate the lock-on, considering that if you're in an engagement with two people, or in a firefight with one team against another (which is a constant thing that happens) it's going to end up being a massive clusterfuck- a mishmash of intents... because if one guy on your team goes down or you have one person less than them, you're automatically gonna let one guy on the enemy team be effectively immune to bullets, because if he' not locked onto then he's gonna have a much higher dodge chance.

Fair point. 4v4 security vs mercenary fights would be a PITA. I'm honestly not sure how this could be handled. I don't think an issue like this is worth throwing out the entire system for, however, because really these don't happen that often.

This system rewards players who will either gank security in solo engagements as antags such as wizards or ninja, while also rewarding Sec constantly all rushing at the antag as one to beat the shit out of them as a collective. It further reinforces the idea that wizards or ninjas should deck solo members of staff, while also telling antags in groups or Security in general that mobbing the shit out of the antags is a solid way to win.

...And our current combat system doesn't reward these styles of play?

It doesn't further reward these styles of play, is what I'm saying. And a team vs. a team fight is relatively common, with modes such as Revolutionary, Mercenary, Raiders, Cult and even some others in certain situations like WIzard, Traitor and Vampire all can involve one team going up against another team. I think further modifiers on intents is a good thing, but I dislike a lock-on system as a catch-all way of fighting. It makes projectile weapons clunkier as firing to suppress becomes negligible unless you have RNG of the gods, and doesn't fix the issue of RNG being the cornerstone of combat (not that I found it an issue). It also makes melee combat just that more infuriating, as you have to now get yet another click on some skittish, running bastard before you're actually able to hit him, leading to this weird staredown before beating each others' head in. I would actually like to see a laser combat with this, but that's just me.

I am against this unless you take species strength and weaknesses into account.